I did not explain because I do not think he's got any reason to do that when he could easily "earn" more by mining altcoins using YOUR very same hash-power that every-one seems to be accussing him of lying about. Well, that was my explanation, you only had to read between the lines ...

Honestly, this is stretching it to unreasonable levels, bottom line is the most unlikely reasons for which slush would allegedly do be responsible for the third party bug attack were being fanned by a dishonest pool op for nefarious aims. I am sure you've noticed the deafening silence since his baseless accusations were emphatically empirically proven to be pie in the sky.

This is where that argument falls to pieces. Why would slush want to do such a thing? He could have used the hash from the pool to mine NMC for himself without giving miners the option to earn the mined NMC and he would make more from that. This is the very same guy who lost BTC 2000 (was it more?) only a few years ago and nothing of the sort of accusation was thrown at him in the following period, until now.

At the end of the day, everyone SHOULD know what their hash rate is supposed to earn them over a reasonable period, say a week. If your rewards are less than that and feel you can get better somewhere else, move it. I personally, since the demise of ghash as we knew it, have not mined at a better place than slush (and yes, been to the slow cooking heist pool too!).

^^ Sanity at last!


Most clear headed miners can establish what their hashing power should earn via a multitude of sites on the net that'll estimate how much you should earn with whatever hashing speed. I've never come accross anyone before on any forum that makes the choice of miner rewards pool to mine at based on pool speed, you are the first (and clearly barmy!).


Says the guy who opened an account specifically to spew drivel, a very cultured dimwit indeed.

Phew, thats a relief! Somebody actually has an opinion congruent to mine on at least one aspect.


I fundamentally dis-agree with this, both in terms of the motive for slush to "lie" about the hashing power of the pool, and in terms of dimming / reducing the incomes of miners. For example, if a pool displays its hash power as 30PH when it is actually 20PH
1. The pool will only be earning circa 20PH worth of rewards
2. The pool will report lower luck because it is only earning 20PH worth, which is less than what is computed for 30PH
3. The miners will only be paid what the pool has earned
4. Miners will STILL be earning proportionately to their real hash power and therefore will NOT loose anything.

Unless you are saying that slush's setup is by far very superior to any other pool / mining operation on the network to an extent that he needs to fake his hash power so that pool luck reported is within the generally published values (but on this accassion something went wrong), then your assertion is flawed. I can not fathom any other plausible reason why slush would want to inflate the pool hash power.

Don't be such a simpleton ... how much did YOU lose in the block with-holding attack?

I am sure that you'll be benefiting from the hard work that the slushpool team put into detecting the with-holding attack, which-ever pool you decide to mine at in the future. If that is not enough innovation for you, that should not form the basis of accussing slush of dishonesty as the two (things) are not related.

I do feel for you if you actually lost money (even if you only think or believe that you lost money, I still feel for you), however my point is simple, slush DID NOT steal it from you, that much everyone knows. Actually, I am not sure ANYONE has what you percieve to have been stolen from you as a block with-holding attack does not necessarily mean the attacker actually kept the block reward to themselves.

What is beyond any shred of doubt though is that slush is an honest (and if you want honorable) pool operator, and his pool was a VICTIM of the block with-holding attack. Now, if you want me to join you in badgering and castigating slushpool for being a victim, I kindly refuse. Unless by mistaken identity, it is abominable in any culture, law or natural justice to victimise a victim, and to see a quack, slow cooking heist pool operator attempting to aid the victimisation through plain dishonesty is diabolical (for lack of a better word).

To paraphrase a famous American politician:
1. That you lost money as a result of the block with-holding attack is a known unknown.
2. That slushpool was a victim of a block with-holding attack is a known known.
So there ... that's what's going on in my brain since you asked.

Actually, I totally understand the argument for such attacks not being accepted as the norm, but that one happened to slush can not make the pool responsible for such an attack happening. You also need to know that this pool mining phenomenon is not even a decade old, so is still evolving, and in most aspects, slush is the leader in improvements to the protocol. I am confident that future block with-holding attacks, on any pool going forward, will be easier to detect on the back of the fantastic work the slushpool team put to identifying the attack on the pool.

That said, we as miners can not expect to have our cake and eat it at the same time, and that is with regard to expecting the pools to re-imburse us when they are the victim of, for example a with-holding attack, but then demand low to no fees for mining at the pool. Insurance policies have a cost and that would inevitably have to be met by the miners, which would mean an increase in fees.

Bottom line, we are where we are, and slush can not be blamed for being attacked. The pool is one of the most resillient on the network as was demonstrated during the recent DDoS attacks targeting pools / nodes voting for BIP101, but block with-holding attacks, as has been demonstrated, are not easily detectable ..... well, it had to come to pass for it to get on the radar.

Now, unless you believe slush should have a crystal ball to know what kind of threat / attack is next on the horizon, I'll take their word for what it truly is worth over some opinion that has been pumped up based on false information by a dishonest pool op fishing for miners.

You got an axe to grind? You are being fed nonsense by quack pool ops and spout it straight out without giving it thought and you have the audacity to lay claim to anything like an IQ score? That on the back of your only "evidence" being slush has not revealed who the "attacker" was?
It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the gibberish you've been fed by the quacks is just that and there's nothing to it at all. Now if you want to lay claim to being the person that "discovered" how low luck was and thus detecting there was an attack on the pool, what has that got to do with anything?

If you think slush is not trustworthy or that he charges exhorbitant fees, do not mine there. Feel free to pop over to the slow cooking heist pool .... but you have been warned, dishonesty, as has been clearly laid bare of the quack pool op fishing for miners, is an ingrained thing ... it is not learnt. It is just a matter of time before the big opportunity presents itself to THAT quack pool op and you'll only have yourself to blame .... mark my words.

If your enduring argument is you do not trust slush, then go mine somewhere else that has a pool operator you trust, END OF STORY.

Conceptually (and sematically) in cryptocurrency pool mining terms, you could not be more wrong in not trusting the very person who by many accounts "invented" pool mining (and the stratum protocol that made it feasible) in the first place. That is quite aside from the fact that despite being the longest existing pool around, such an accusation has NEVER been laid against slush, let alone the lack of any concrete proof to back up your accusation being brought for scrutiny.

The stats and facts speak for themselves, and assertions otherwise - akin to applying a razor to a hair strand only to be emphatically empirically disproved (aptly demonstrated by the quack pool op fishing for miners) cannot alter them. YOU are wrong to accuse slush of dishonesty, and the quack pool op fanning your ignorance is the dishonest one (that in more ways than fishing for miners .... but you'll find out in time).

Facts are plainly there for all to see, if you choose to open your eyes and see them for what they truly are. Problem is you do not want to see them for what they are.
1. There was a block with-holding attack which negatively affected pool luck
2. The said attack was detected, miner identified and, after thorough investigation, the attack was attributed to buggy software
3. The offending miner's buggy software was patched with the un-doubtable expertise of the slushpool team which positively affected pool luck

The rest is the usual tripe by lesser pool operators fishing for miners, I have to say, slush keeps growing and that is telling.

You did not say whether you'd believe the facts .... but as you know, good AND bad luck happen, and it would not be a stretch of the imagination to attribute bad luck to .... bad luck, would it now?

Don't believe me, see the pool luck yourself .... does it look like it's been fixed like slush said?


If slush said he'll give the findings, then he will if he has not already done so, that I have no doubt, however, the probability that slush "took all those blocks" is a figment of your imagination. And yes, if he says it was a with-holding attack, I have every reason to believe it was such, but more importantly, I have NO reason at all to think it was not (emphasis on the latter).


If I point you to the truth, would you believe it if you read it with your own eyes?

Whether you spotted the issue that long ago is neither here nor there, fact is (and as far as I am concerned) it has now been resolved. For what it is worth, I'll add that I will take slush's word over yours any day wihout batting an eyelid, and that is not a reflection on you.

By the way, I am NOT defending slush, just pointing out the facts as I see them, if anything, just to stem your tirade of twaddle (though clearly it is not working on that last one!).

Your conspiracy theories are just that. As far as I am concerned, everything at slushpool is above board. The block with-holding attack can not be blamed on slush whatever crede you proffess to as the attack can happen to any pool, more so to a successfull one like slush.

All that needed to be said about the attack by the team at slushpool, to my reckoning, has been said. And true to their word, pool luck since has been above average, even skirting above the levels before the attack. The remnants of the conversation are mainly geared towards getting the gullible to switch to lesser pools, but nothing more of substance.

You profess your ignorance at will. To be able to launch a block with-holding attack worthy of the tag requires more than the single solitary miner that you believe was responsible. And why wouldn't anyone want to mine at a pool with pool luck of, as we speak, 216%, 117% and 110% for the day, week and month respectively?

Nonsense! The only thing that quacks like a duck in all this, and thus is a duck is yourself. If a fool is described as one that mines at a pool with above average luck (198%, 117% and 110% for 1 day, 7 days and 30 days respectively), then whoever does not mine there, or advises not to mine there, must be an accomplished idiot.

In all this, bear in mind that some pools piggy-back on others to improve their luck and lure miners to their pools, and some operators have gone on record to detail their methods of sabotaging other pools that piggyback onto them thus you can not rule out the very real possibility that some pool operator targets another with a block withholding attack, simply to suppress that pool's luck and lure miners to their pools.

I actually believe slush gave a cover story for the block with-holding attack and the real culprit is another pool. Saying that, I have every confidence in slush's ability to handle this better than any other pool operator on planet bitcoin. Pool mining is about trusting the pool operator and slush being the pioneer pool (and stratum protocol architect) can not put his reputation out to hang over a 4 month block with-holding attack by misleading miners. If anything, slush holds the miner's best interests to the forefront in everything that he does, and questioning that should raise more questions about intentions.

Nice one captain, and the UI keeps getting better! Looking forward to the proof stats coming up, and great job nipping that block with-holding bug ... better late than never I say. Oh! before I forget, the pool luck across all stats looks brilliant too .... keep up the good work.

If you do not want to be called a liar, do not lie, simple.
The datasheet is quite clear on the recomended voltage setting for different frequencies, so persisting with your lies that the voltage setting has no use, while saying in the next breath that you do not know what the chip actually does with the settings from cgminer, simply cements your assertions as pure lies (and which liar wouldn't have their fill if they were found out?).

The voltage setting, like I stated, will not resurect an inadequately powered S3, so the OP has to ensure they are powering their rig adequately before even being concerned about the voltage setting. Matching the frequency they are running at with the recomended voltage setting (or a touch higer) will definitely reduce HW and / or improve hash speed.

EDIT:
Here's one example, properly powered with a Dell N750P-S0 server PSU with 4 custom made 16AWG 6 pin PCI-e cables, that's been running for a couple of weeks with the voltage setting matched to that recomended for the frequency in the datasheet.



I usually let these run for months on end without restarting save for when the PSU's fans die (common with these PSU's running in a shed in the garden) and the PSU shuts down.

You are a liar because you crystallised your argument based on your search for an under-volt efficiency, not on whether the voltage setting can improve the efficiency of the rig depending on which frequency you are running, and that is where you went wrong. That you adamantly peddle that as fact in direct contradiction with even the datasheet, makes you an even bigger liar.

But we digress, OP's issue, like he stated, is about how they are powering the problem rig. If you want to split hairs as to which diodes you looked at and what the readings of your multimeter were when you were looking to undervolt, then I'll leave you to it.